![\"\"](\"\/116.gif\")
\nAncient Pergamos<\/p>\n
\nAncient Pergamos<\/p>\n
COGwriter<\/a><\/p>\n Who were the Paulicians?\u00a0 Were they part of the Church of God?<\/p>\n History shows that God had people in Pergamos and in various hidden areas, with many of them referred to as ‘descendants of the Nazarenes’, ‘Paulicians’, ‘Bogomils’, ‘Cathars’, ‘Patarenes’, and ‘Albigensians’ (although not all peoples referred by those names were in the true Church).<\/p>\n The Catholic Encyclopedia<\/em> has a couple of ideas where the name Paulician may came from:<\/p>\n The origin of the name Paulician<\/em> is obscure. Gibbon (Decline and Fall, liv), says it means “Disciples of St. Paul” (Photius, op. cit., II, 11; III, 10; VI, 4). Their special veneration for the Apostle, and their habit of renaming their leaders after his disciples lend some colour to this view. On the other hand, the form (Paulikianoi<\/em>, not Paulianoi<\/em>) is curious; and the name seems to have been used only by their opponents, who held that they were followers of Paul of Samosata (Conybeare, op. cit., cv)\u2026The latest authority, Ter-Mkrttschian (Die Paulicianer, 63), says the name is an Armenian diminutive and means “followers of little Paul” (Fortesque A. Transcribed by Richard L. George. Paulicians. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XI. Copyright \u00a9 1911 by Robert Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright \u00a9 2003 by K. Knight. Nihil Obstat, February 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Some of those labeled as Paulicians kept Church of God doctrines, while many with that name did not.<\/p>\n In the latter portion of the third century and even into the fourth century, many Smyrnaeans (especially those with a Jewish heritage) in the Asia Minor area were known as Nazarenes and some were known as Paulicians.<\/p>\n The Bible records that the Apostle Paul was considered to be the head of the Nazarenes (for more on the Nazarenes, please see the article Nazarene Christianity: Were the Original Christians Nazarenes?<\/a>):<\/p>\n 1…Paul…5 For we have found this man a plague, a creator of dissension among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes (Acts 24:5).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n It may be interesting to note that according to something from a 2nd\/3rd century document (that was probably altered in places in the 4th century), titled The Life of Polycarp<\/em>, shows that the Apostle Paul endorsed keeping the\u00a0 Passover<\/a>, the Days of Unleavened Bread<\/a>, and Pentecost<\/a> to those in Smyrna:<\/p>\n In the days of unleavened bread Paul<\/strong>, coming down from Galatia, arrived in Asia, considering the repose among the faithful in Smyrna to be a great refreshment in Christ Jesus after his severe toil, and intending afterwards to depart to Jerusalem. So in Smyrna he went to visit Strataeas, who had been his hearer in Pamphylia, being a son of Eunice the daughter of Lois. These are they of whom he makes mention when writing to Timothy, saying; Of the unfeigned faith that is in thee, which dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois and in thy mother Eunice; <\/em>whence we find that Strataeas was a brother of Timothy. Paul then, entering his house and gathering together the faithful there, speaks to them concerning the Passover and the Pentecost, reminding them of the New Covenant of the offering of bread and the cup; how that they ought most assuredly to celebrate it during the days of unleavened bread, but to hold fast the new mystery of the Passion and Resurrection. For here the Apostle plainly<\/strong> teaches that we ought neither to keep it outside the season of unleavened bread, as the heretics do, especially the Phrygians…but named the days of unleavened bread, the Passover, and the Pentecost, thus ratifying the Gospel<\/strong> (Pionius. Life of Polycarp, Chapter 2. Translated by J. B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, vol. 3.2, 1889, pp.488-506).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Thus, the “apostle to the Gentiles” (Romans 11:13), taught Gentile Christians in Asia Minor (specifically in Smyrna) to keep the Holy Days. Days many now consider to be Jewish and not Christian–but apparently Paul considered them important for all Christians to keep (see also 1 Corinthians 5:7-8 where he told the Gentiles in Corinth to keep them as well).<\/p>\n Some consider that those who were the followers of Paul in regards to the Holy Days, were Paulicians.\u00a0 However, in the middle of the third century, Paul of Samosata, came to be considered to be a bishop in Antioch (part of the East, but normally considered to have been in Syria, hence not actually part of Asia Minor). But he was accused of immoral behavior and became considered a problem by the Alexandrians and Romans, who held several synods to investigate him and he was deposed.<\/p>\n Lucian Probably Was Called a Paulician<\/strong><\/p>\n Also notice what else was happening in Antioch at the time:<\/p>\n Lucian of Antioch…Though he cannot be accused of having shared the theological views of Paul of Samosata, he fell under suspicion at the time of Paul’s condemnation, and was compelled to sever his communion with the Church…<\/p>\n The opposition to the allegorizing tendencies of the Alexandrines centred in him. He rejected this system entirely and propounded a system of literal interpretation…(Healy P.J. Transcribed by Joseph P. Thomas. Lucian of Antioch. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume IX. Published 1910. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Nihil Obstat, October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Some who supported Paul of Samosata were also called Paulicians.\u00a0 Actually, it seems to me that all who did not accept the views of the Alexandrian and Roman churches in the area of Antioch about this time were labeled Paulicians–and this likely included Lucian and people who held similar views.<\/p>\n There were binitarians (sometimes called Semi-Arians)<\/a> “Paulicians” in the area of Antioch who also kept the seventh-day Sabbath in the Lucian’s time (late third century). While I am not certain if Lucian was or was not in the Church of God, he and others in his area were Semi-Arian, rejected using allegory as the primary way of interpreting the Bible, and since they were considered practicing Judaism, they would have kept the Sabbath. Notice this condemnation by a Roman Catholic Cardinal:<\/p>\n Lucian, who schismatized or was excommunicated on his deposition, held heretical tenets of a diametrically opposite nature, that is, such as were afterwards called Semi-Arian…I would rather direct the reader’s attention to the particular form which the Antiochene corruptions seem to have assumed, viz., that of Judaism… (Cardinal Newman, John Henry. The Arians of the Fourth Century. Longmans, Green, & Co., New York, 1908, pp. 7,9).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n So, there were people in the Antioch area that held to some form of Judeao-Christianity in the third century according to Catholic sources.<\/p>\n Emperor Constantine and Others Condemned Them<\/strong> Towards the end of the Smyrna era, Constantine became emperor. He decreed circa March 7, 321,<\/p>\n “Let all judges, the people of cities, and those employed in all trades, remain quiet on the Holy Day of Sunday. Persons residing in the country, however, can freely and lawfully proceed with the cultivation of the fields; as it frequently happens that the sowing of grain or the planting of vines cannot be deferred to a more suitable day, and by making concessions to Heaven the advantage of the time may be lost.” (Code of Justinian, Book III, Title XII, III. THE JUSTINIAN CODE FROM THE CORPUS JURIS CIVILIS. Translated from the original Latin by Samuel P. Scott. Central Trust Company, Cincinnati, 1932).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The Emperor authorized persecution against those who did not share his religious beliefs (many of which came from Mithraism), such as Sunday. Around 332, Constantine issued what is known as the Edict Against the Heretics<\/em>,<\/p>\n Victor Constantinus, Maximus Augustus, to the heretics. \u201cUnderstand now, by this present statute, ye Novatians, Valentinians, Marcionites, Paulians, ye who are called Cataphrygians, and all ye who devise and support heresies by means of your private assemblies, with what a tissue of falsehood and vanity, with what destructive and venomous errors, your doctrines are inseparably interwoven; so that through you the healthy soul is stricken with disease, and the living becomes the prey of everlasting death. Ye haters and enemies of truth and life, in league with destruction! All your counsels are opposed to the truth, but familiar with deeds of baseness; full of absurdities and fictions: and by these ye frame falsehoods, oppress the innocent, and withhold the light from them that believe. Ever trespassing under the mask of godliness, ye fill all things with defilement: ye pierce the pure and guileless conscience with deadly wounds, while ye withdraw, one may almost say, the very light of day from the eyes of men. But why should I particularize, when to speak of your criminality as it deserves demands more time and leisure than I can give? For so long and unmeasured is the catalogue of your offenses, so hateful and altogether atrocious are they, that a single day would not suffice to recount them all. And, indeed, it is well to turn one\u2019s ears and eyes from such a subject, lest by a description of each particular evil, the pure sincerity and freshness of one\u2019s own faith be impaired. Why then do I still bear with such abounding evil; especially since this protracted clemency is the cause that some who were sound are become tainted with this pestilent disease? Why not at once strike, as it were, at the root of so great a mischief by a public manifestation of displeasure? (Chapter LXIV.\u2014Constantine\u2019s Edict against the Heretics. This document is from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library at Calvin College<\/em>).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Some of those referred to as Paulians (Paulicians) and Cataphrygians were part of the true Church of God. And like some other persecutions, it included those truly in the Church of God and those not in the true church. Herod, when he tried to kill Jesus, persecuted an entire nation, killed many babies, but Jesus’ family fled the persecution and He survived. Constantine’s tactics seem similar.\u00a0 Because Emperor Constantine called for and oversaw the Council of Nicea in 325 which endorsed Sunday, it makes sense that any “Paulicians” that kept the seventh-day Sabbath (Saturday) would engender his wrath. Despite what Constantine tried to do, there were still binitarian (sometimes called Semi-Arian)<\/a> Paulicians in Armenia who also kept the seventh-day Sabbath in the late fourth century and they were persecuted by others:<\/p>\n Eustathius was succeeded by Erius, a priest, and semi-Arian…Erius also condemned fasts, stated feasts, prayers for the dead, and the celebration of Easter; he urged a purer morality and a stricter observance of the Sabbath. He had many followers, whose numbers were augmented by one of Paul of Samosota, from whom they were called Paulicians. Notwithstanding the opposition of the prelates, who invoked the secular arm to prevent the defection of their spiritual subjects, the tenets of this sect struck deep root in Armenia and many of its eastern provinces, and finally the great body of Christians in the former country, withdrew from the Episcopal communion, and publicly espoused the sentiments of the Paulicians…The bishops of Syria, Pontus, and Cappadocia, complained of the defection of their spiritual flocks…induced the Grecian emperors to commence, and continue for nearly two centuries, the most terrible persecutions against the Paulicians (Davis, Tamar. A General History of the Sabbatarian Churches. 1851; Reprinted 1995 by Commonwealth Publishing, Salt Lake City, pp. 20-23).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Anti-Christ Notions <\/strong><\/p>\n They were not popular with the Roman Catholics because they considered them to represent forces that were anti-Christ. Actually, as a Catholic source suggested that the Paulicians first came up with the papal-antichrist theory in the fourth to seventh century:<\/p>\n Now, one of the first questions which it is natural to ask on entering upon the subject is, whereas the Pope is said to be Antichrist, sometimes from the fourth, sometimes from the seventh century, when was he first detected and denounced, and by whom? On this point, Todd supplies us with much information, from which it appears that the belief that the Pope was Antichrist was the conclusion gradually formed and matured out of the belief that the Church of Rome was Babylon, by… the Oriental Manichees or Paulicians (Newman JH. The Protestant Idea of Antichrist. [British Critic, Oct. 1840]. Newman Reader \u2014 Works of John Henry Newman. Copyright \u00a9 2004 by The National Institute for Newman Studies. http:\/\/www.newmanreader.org\/works\/essays\/volume2\/antichrist1.html viewed 12\/03\/07).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Why would that occur then?<\/p>\n In the late fourth century (382 AD), after the Eastern emperor Theodosius established Greco-Roman Christianity as the official religion of the empire, the Western Emperor Gratian renounced the title of Pontifex Maximus (he was the also last of the emperors to hold that title). Almost immediately afterwards, the bishops of Rome took the term and have used it ever since.<\/p>\n Since \u201cPontifex Maximus\u201d was a pagan title signifying the greatest (maximus) bridge-builder (pontifex) between mortals and the gods, it seems that when the Roman bishops started to refer to themselves this way that it was clear to the faithful of the true Church that this could only be done by one who could go along (cf. Revelation 13:11-15) with someone like the \u201cman of sin\u201d that the Apostle Paul had warned about (see 2 Thessalonians 2:3-11), as well as one who had a pagan view of the Godhead (more information on the Godhead can be found in the article Binitarian View: One God, Two Beings Before the Beginning<\/a>).<\/p>\n (Perhaps it should be noted that that idea of a Latin<\/em> or Roman<\/em> anti-Christ was apparently developed by Polycarp<\/a>, and he seems to have learned this from the Apostle John<\/a>. But it apparently was not until the late fourth century that the Bishops of Rome had enough influence and heresy to have such a resemblance to the final antichrist<\/a>.)<\/p>\n Paulicians Were Persecuted for Opposing Idolatry<\/strong><\/p>\n The Catholic Encyclopedia<\/em> calls the Paulicians heretics because they were basically against idolatry and Roman Catholic ritualism:<\/p>\n The Paulicians, as part of their heresy held that all matter (especially the human body) is bad, that all external religious forms, sacraments, rites, especially material pictures and relics, should be abolished. To honour the Cross was especially reprehensible (Fortescue A. Iconoclasm. Transcribed by Michael C. Tinkler.The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VII. Copyright \u00a9 1910 by Robert Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright \u00a9 2003 by K. Knight. Nihil Obstat, June 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Amazingly, The Catholic Encyclopedia <\/em>notes this about the Paulicians:<\/p>\n Leo V, though an Iconoclast, tried to refute the accusation that he was a Paulician by persecuting them furiously. A great number of them at this time rebelled and fled to the Saracens. Sergius was killed in 835. Theodora, regent for her son Michael III, continued the persecution…<\/p>\n We hear continually of wars against the Saracens, Armenians, and Paulicians…<\/p>\n This eliminated the sect as a military power. Meanwhile other Paulicians, heretics but not rebels, lived in groups throughout the empire (Fortesque A. Transcribed by Richard L. George. Paulicians. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XI. Copyright \u00a9 1911 by Robert Appleton Company. Online Edition Copyright \u00a9 2003 by K. Knight. Nihil Obstat, February 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n In other words, since the Paulicians and Emperor Leo V were against idols, Leo decided he had to persecute them because he was accused of being a bit like them in that area. And additional persecution followed Leo’s. The above quote also shows that there were Paulicians, who even though persecuted, would not fight back. This is because those truly in the Church of God were opposed to military participation (please see article Military Service and the COGs<\/a><\/span>).<\/p>\n And while not all who claimed to have been Paulicians were in the true church, notice how brutal the persecution was:<\/p>\n The empress, Theodora, instituted a new persecution, in which a hundred thousand Paulicians in Grecian Armenia are said to have lost their lives (Paulicianism. WIkipedia, viewed 06\/26\/08).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Thus, the “Orthodox” Empress Theodora apparently killed 100,000!<\/p>\n Furthermore, note this historical writing about the Paulicians in Armenia:<\/p>\n From the earliest ages they have devoutly hated the error and idolatry of the Greeks. Like the primitive Christians, they have ever exhibited an unconquerable repugnance to the use or abuse of images, which, in the eighth and ninth centuries spread like a leposy…and supplanted all traces of genuine piety in the visible church…They are decidedly adverse (Davis, Tamar. A General History of the Sabbatarian Churches. 1851; Reprinted 1995 by Commonwealth Publishing, Salt Lake City, p. 24).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Thus the followers of the true church were persecuted for beliefs such as opposing idolatry.<\/p>\n Paulicians Did Not Keep Sunday or Greco-Roman Holidays<\/strong><\/p>\n The historian, Fred C. Conybeare observed this about some affiliated with the Paulicians:<\/p>\n They are accused by their Armenian opponents of setting at naught all the feasts and fasts of the Church, especially Sunday…The Sabbath was perhaps kept…Of the modern Christmas and of the Annunciation, and of the other feasts connected with the life of Jesus prior to his thirtieth year, this phase of the church knew nothing. The general impression which the study of it leaves on us is that in it we have before us a form of Church not very remote from the primitive Jewish Christianity of Palestine (Conybeare F.C. The Key of Truth: A Manual of the Paulician Church of Armenia. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1898, pp. clii, cxciii).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n It would be logical that Paulicians would be opposed to Sunday<\/a> and the other festivals of the Roman Church<\/a>.<\/p>\n Noted historian K.S. Latourette wrote,<\/p>\n \u201cfor centuries even many Gentile Christians also observed the seventh day, or Sabbath\u201d (Latourette K.S. A History of Christianity, Volume 1, Beginnings to 1500. Harper Collins, San Francisco, 1975, p.198).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n And Sabbath-keeping has existed throughout history (even Roberts and Donaldson refer to it in the 1800s).<\/p>\n Paulicians Were Believed to Have Preserved Pure Early Christianity<\/strong><\/p>\n Like the Romans, the Paulicians condemned Simon Magus:<\/p>\n But Simon himself believed and was baptized and rose up against Philip in trickery and charlanatry, in order to obtain the power of the holy spirit by deceit (Conybeare F.C. The Key of Truth: A Manual of the Paulician Church of Armenia. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1898, p. 92)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Unlike certain Romans, the true “Pergamos era” Paulicians did not have any the heretical practices associated with Simon such as statues<\/a>, revering a woman (Simon’s “wife” and later Mary), the doctrine of the immortal soul<\/a>, incantations, mystic priests<\/a>, claiming divine titles for leaders, accepting money for religious favors, preferring allegory<\/a> and tradition<\/a> over many aspects of scripture, having a leader who wanted to be thought of as God\/Christ on earth, and being divorced from Christian biblical practices considered to be Jewish, (detailed information on what the Bible and mainly Roman sources wrote about Simon is found in the article Simon Magus, What Did He Teach?<\/a>).<\/p>\n The following is from the Catholic Priest Basil Sarkisean’s work Manichaean Paulician Heresy<\/em> and is from a 987 A.D. letter written by Gregory of Narek against the Paulicians (note I have left out additions by the editor\/translator F. Conybeare):<\/p>\n Then among the observances which we know to have been repudiated by them as neither apostolic or divine the mysterious prayers of genuflexion…<\/p>\n The Font is denied by them…<\/p>\n the communion of immortality…is denied…<\/p>\n We know that they deny the adored sign, which God, made man, raised and carried on his shoulders (Conybeare F.C. Addendix I in: The Key of Truth: A Manual of the Paulician Church of Armenia. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1898, p. 127).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Perhaps I should add that Gregory of Narek called a man “valiant…who destroyed and put to death their cursed ancestors” (ibid, p.128).<\/p>\n The following from the late fourth century, by Gregory of Nyssa suggests that the Manichaean\/Paulicians did accept the Father and Son as God, but not the Holy Spirit, hence they held a binitarian view<\/a>:<\/p>\n I am aware, too, that the Manichees go about vaunting the name of Christ. Because they hold revered the Name to which we bow the knee, shall we therefore number them amongst Christians? So, too, he who both believes in the Father and receives the Son, but sets aside the Majesty of the Spirit, has “denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel,” and belies the name of Christ which he bears (Gregory of Nyssa. On the Holy Spirit, Against the Macedonians. Excerpted from Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series Two, Volume 5. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. American Edition, 1893. Online Edition Copyright \u00a9 2005 by K. Knight).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n A related article of interest may be Did Early Christians Think the Holy Spirit Was A Separate Person in a Trinity?<\/a><\/p>\n Harvard scholar H. Brown wrote:<\/p>\n The Bogomils…Its doctrine of God is highly dualistic…There is no True Trinity (Brown HOJ. Heresies: Heresy and Orthodoxy in the History of the Church. Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody (MA), 1988, p. 251).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n One of their so-called “dualistic” teachings was that this is Satan’s world. One scholar noted that an:<\/p>\n …important idea of Bogomils and Cathars, i.e. that this world is the kingdom of the devil (Vassilev, Georgi. DUALISTIC IDEAS IN THE WORKS OF WILLIAM TYNDALE. ACADEMIE BULGARE DES SCIENCES. INSTITUT D’ETUDES BALKANIQUES. ETUDES BALKANIQUES, n\u00b0 1, 2003: 124-142).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Notice this from The Catholic Encyclopedia<\/em>:<\/p>\n The heresy of the Bogomili was started in the tenth century…followers called themselves Christians and considered their faith the only true one. In Bosnia they were named Paterines. The Paterines, or Bogomili…forbade intercourse with those of other faiths, disbelieved in war (Klaar K. Transcribed by Joseph E. O’Connor. Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume II. Published 1907. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Nihil Obstat, 1907. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The following is apparently from the work History of Armenia<\/em> by Chamich and is from a 1054-1058 A.D. letter written by Gregory Magistros against the Manichaean (note I have left out additions by the editor\/translator F. Conybeare):<\/p>\n …they represent our worship of God as worship of idol. As if we, who honour the sign of the cross and the holy pictures, were still engaged in worshiping devils (Conybeare F.C. Addend ix III in: The Key of Truth: A Manual of the Paulician Church of Armenia. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1898, p. 149).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n It is of historical interest to note the following doctrinal admissions in the article on the Paulicians in The Catholic Encyclopedia <\/em>(bolding mine) :<\/p>\n They honoured not the Cross, but only the book of the Gospel. They were Iconoclasts, rejecting all pictures…<\/p>\n The whole ecclesiastical hierarchy is bad, as also all Sacraments and ritual. They had a special aversion to monks…<\/p>\n Since Gibbon the Paulicians have often been described as a survival of early and pure Christianity<\/strong>, godly folk who clung to the Gospel, rejecting later superstitions, who were grossly calumniated by their opponents…<\/p>\n In Armenia the sect continued in the “Thonraketzi” founded by a certain Smbat in the ninth century. Conybeare attributes to this Smbat a work, “The Key of Truth”, which he has edited. It accepts the Old Testament and the Sacraments of Baptism. Penance, and the Eucharist. This work especially has persuaded many writers that the Paulicians were much maligned people. But in any case it represents a very late stage of their history, and it is disputed whether it is really Paulician at all.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Edward Gibbon was a British historian who was not in any Church of God. Yet apparently because of his historical research, even outsiders have concluded that some of the Paulicians (not all, however, held true doctrine) were a remnant of the true church.<\/p>\n Interestingly, The Catholic Encyclopedia<\/em> article also admits:<\/p>\n The emperor Alexius Comnenus is credited with having put an end to the heresy. During a residence at Philippopolis, he argued with them and converted all, or nearly all, back to the Church (so his daughter: “Alexias”, XV, 9). From this time the Paulicians practically disappear from history. But they left traces of their heresy. In Bulgaria the Bogomile sect, which lasted through the Middle Ages and spread to the West in the form of Cathari, Albigenses, and other Manichaean heresies, is a continuation of Paulicianism. In Armenia, too, similar sects, derived from them, continue till our own time.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Notice that even some Roman Catholic scholars know that it is possible that the Paulicians were the survivors of an early and pure Christianity and that they had spiritual descendants that continued into the future (such as those within the Thyatira era<\/a>), as well into modern times! The Cathari were also known to be pacifists, as well the faithful among the Paulicians (of course there were many called by those names that were not faithful).<\/p>\n Comments from Other Researchers<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n In his book titled God’s Church Through the Ages<\/a>, John Ogywn makes the following comments:<\/p>\n According to Armenian scholar Nina Garsoian in The Paulician Heresy<\/em>: “It would, then, appear that the Paulicians are to be taken as the survival of the earlier form of Christianity in Armenia” (p. 227). The author also states that the Paulicians were “accused of being worse than other sects because of adding Judaism<\/strong>” (p. 213).<\/p>\n Christ\u2019s message to this third stage of God\u2019s Church (Paulicians) is characterized by the Church at Pergamos (Revelation 2:12\u201317). The word Pergamos<\/em> means “fortified,” and the Church members of this era were noted for dwelling in remote, mountainous areas…<\/p>\n At some point in their history, however, many Paulicians succumbed to a fatal error. They reasoned that they could outwardly conform with many of the practices of the Catholic Church in order to avoid persecution as long as in their heart they knew better. <\/strong>This road of compromise led many to have their children christened and others to attend mass. Christ prophesied of this, admonishing the Church at Pergamos about those who held to pagan, immoral doctrines (Revelation 2:14\u201315)…<\/p>\n In the eighth and ninth centuries, many Armenian Paulicians were forcibly resettled in the Balkans by Byzantine emperors. They were placed there as a bulwark against the invading Bulgar tribes. Relocated to the Balkans, the Paulicians came to be called Bogomils.<\/p>\n What did these Bogomils teach? “Baptism was only to be practiced on grown men and women\u2026 images and crosses were idols” (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th ed., “Bogomils”).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n So, while many called Paulician compromised, some did hold to Church of God doctrines.<\/p>\n Harvard scholar H. Brown wrote:<\/p>\n …in Slavoni, the name “Bomomil” means “beloved of God”…The specific predecessors of the Bogomils are the Paulicians…Many Bogomils, and especially their leaders, exhibited a zeal and a purity of life that contrasted with the indifference and frivolity of all too many orthodox ecclestiastics in both East and West…Like the Paulicians, the Bogomils detested the cross, for it was the symbol of the Saviour’s apparent murder (Brown HOJ. Heresies: Heresy and Orthodoxy in the History of the Church. Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody (MA), 1988, pp. 247,252).<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n He also noted that the Bogomils were pacifists (Ibid p.260).<\/p>\n In the introduction to his English translation of The Key of Truth<\/em>, F.C. Conybeare provides this quote on the practices of the early Paulicians:<\/p>\n John of Otzun\u2019s language perhaps implies that the old believers in Armenia during the seventh century were Quartodecimans, as we should expect them to be (Conybeare F.C. The Key of Truth: A Manual of the Paulician Church of Armenia. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1898, p. clii).<\/p>\n …they were probably the remnant of an old Judeo-Christian Church, which had spread up through Edessa into Siuniq and Albania” (ibid, p. clxii).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n We also know from a notice preserved by Ananias of Shirak that the Pauliani, who were the same people at an earlier date, called Quartodecimans, and kept Passover at the Jewish date:<\/p>\n But the Paulini also keep the feast of the Pascha on the same day (as the Jews), whatever be the day of the full moon, they call it Kuriaki, as the Jews call it Sabbath, even though it be not a Sabbath (Conybeare F.C. The Key of Truth: A Manual of the Paulician Church of Armenia. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1898, p. clii).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n It should be mentioned that “Quartodecimans” are those who follow the biblical and apostolic example of observing the Passover <\/a>on the 14th day of Nisan.<\/p>\n Concluding Thoughts<\/strong><\/p>\n “Paulicians” were a label that Alexandrian and Roman supporters apparently labeled certain opponents with.\u00a0 Apparently those who were labeled as Paulician did not accept the authority of the Bishops of Rome, were opposed to Sunday as the designated day of worship, were opposed to idols, eschewed certain Roman rituals, seemingly had binitarian views of the Godhead, considered that those who took up the title Pontifex Maximus took a title that would be associated with Antichrist, kept Passover on the 14th, and they were persecuted.<\/p>\n Many, because of persecution and economic pressures apparently compromised, and some apostasized to the point of engaging in carnal warfare.\u00a0 While those who did that were not true part of the Church of God, there were apparently some of the faithful amongst those labeled as Paulicians.<\/p>\n And that is how it is even today.\u00a0 While we in the Living Church of God,<\/a> for example, are not Protestant, Roman and Eastern Orthodox <\/a>Catholics tend to lump us in with the Protestants as we do not accept the various doctrinal compromises that the Catholics have made. (for documentation, please see Which Is Faithful: The Roman Catholic Church or the Living Church of God?<\/a>). \u00a0 While we, like the Protestants<\/a> claim, do believe in sola Scriptura<\/a>, do not endorse the use of statues in worship, and eschew certain ritualistic aspects of the Greco-Romans, this does not make us Protestant any more than having Church of God doctrines made people “Paulicians”.<\/p>\n But it could be properly stated that we in the Living Church of God count among our spiritual ancestors some who were called Paulicians.\u00a0 And we believe that we have faithfully been carrying out the original Christian faith as was practiced by the original apostles and their most faithful successors.<\/p>\n Some articles of related interest may include:<\/em><\/p>\n The History of Early Christianity<\/a> Are you aware that what most people believe is not what truly happened to the true Christian church? Do you know where the early church was based? Do you know what were the doctrines of the early church? Is your faith really based upon the truth or compromise? Ancient Pergamos COGwriter Who were the Paulicians?\u00a0 Were they part of the Church of God? History shows that God had people in Pergamos and in various hidden areas, with many of them referred to as ‘descendants of the Nazarenes’, ‘Paulicians’, ‘Bogomils’, ‘Cathars’, ‘Patarenes’, and ‘Albigensians’ (although not all peoples referred by those names were in […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6260","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-church-history"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n<\/span><\/p>\n
\n<\/strong>News Articles Related to Church History<\/a> This link is to articles on Church history that were once published on the COG News Page<\/a>.
\n<\/strong>The Churches of Revelation 2 & 3<\/a> Do they matter? Most say they must, but act like they do not. This article contains some history about the Church of God (sometimes referred to as the continuation of Primitive Christianity) over the past 2000 years. It also discusses the concept of church eras.
\nWhat Do Roman Catholic Scholars Actually Teach About Early Church History?<\/a> Although most believe that the Roman Catholic Church history teaches an unbroken line of succession of bishops beginning with Peter, with stories about most of them, Roman Catholic scholars know the truth of this matter. This eye-opening article is a must-read for any who really wants to know what Roman Catholic history actually admits about the early church.
\nNazarene Christianity: Were the Original Christians Nazarenes?<\/a> Should Christians be Nazarenes today? What were the practices of the Nazarenes.
\nLocation of the Early Church: Another Look at Ephesus, Smyrna, and Rome<\/a> What actually happened to the primitive Church? And did the Bible tell about this in advance?
\nApostolic Succession<\/a> What really happened? Did structure and beliefs change? Are many of the widely-held current understandings of this even possible? Did you know that Catholic scholars really do not believe that several of the claimed “apostolic sees” of the Orthodox have apostolic succession–despite the fact that the current pontiff himself seems to wish to ignore this view?\u00a0 Is there actually a true church that has ties to any of the apostles that is not part of the Catholic or Orthodox churches?\u00a0 Read this article if you truly are interested in the truth on this matter!
\nEarly Church History: Who Were the Two Major Groups Professed Christ in the Second and Third Centuries?<\/a> Did you know that many in the second and third centuries felt that there were two major, and separate, professing Christian groups in the second century, but that those in the majority churches tend to now blend the groups together and claim “saints” from both? “Saints” that condemn some of their current beliefs. Who are the two groups?
\nDo You Practice Mithraism?<\/a> Many practices and doctrines that mainstream so-called Christian groups have are the same or similar to those of the sun-god Mithras. Do you follow Mithraism combined with the Bible or original Christianity?
\nThe Churches of Revelation 2 & 3<\/a> from 31 A.D. to present: information on all of the seven churches of Revelation 2 & 3.
\n1. The Ephesus Church Era<\/a> was predominant from 31 A.D. to circa 135 A.D. The Church of James, Peter, Paul, and John, etc.
\n2. The Smyrna Church Era<\/a> was predominant circa 135 A.D. to circa 450 A.D. The Church led by Polycarp, Melito, Polycrates, etc.
\n3. The Pergamos Church Era<\/a> was predominant circa 450 A.D. to circa 1050 A.D. An especially persecuted Church.
\n4. The Thyatira Church Era<\/a> was predominant circa 1050 A.D. to circa 1600 A.D. The Church during the Inquisition.
\n5. The Sardis Church Era<\/a> was predominant circa 1600 A.D. to circa 1933 A.D. Discusses early history of the Seventh Day Baptists, Seventh-day Adventists, and COG-7th Day.
\n6. The Philadelphia Church Era<\/a> was predominant circa 1933 A.D. to 1986 A.D. The old Radio Church of God and old Worldwide Church of God, now basically the Living Church of God.
\n7. The Laodicean Church Era <\/a>has been predominant circa 1986 A.D. to present. These are non-Philadelphians who mainly descended from the old WCG.
\nWhat Did the Early Church Teach About Idols and Icons?<\/a> What about the use of the cross, by the early Church?
\nDid The Early Christian Church Practice Monasticism?<\/a> Or was monsticism unheard of in the early Christian church?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"